Tom Martin’s “anti-male discrimination” case against the London School of Economics dismissed; he responds by calling his critics “whores.”

Tom Martin, a former gender studies student at the London School of Economics, recently became a minor celebrity amongst Men’s Rights activists and other angry men when he sued his alma mater for alleged sexism against men.

He’s now had his case thrown out of court. Let’s go to the Camden New Journal for details:

Tom Martin, 39, who lives in Covent Garden, claimed he suffered “anti-male discrimination” while studying for a master’s degree in gender, media and culture at the world-famous university in Holborn.

Representing himself at his application for a trial at the Central London County Court on Tuesday, Mr Martin complained of a lack of men-only sessions in the university’s gym and the preponderance of posters in the corridors advertis­ing services for women without the presence of similar materials geared towards men.

Mr Martin, who describes himself as a feminist, said “hard” chairs in the library were uncomfortable for men and that a “male blaming culture” was evident in course materials, which “ignored men’s issues” and focused on wrongs done by them.

Damn those misandrist chairs and their man-hating hardness!

The judge didn’t buy it, saying Martin’s case had essentially no chance of success. He threw out the case and ordered Martin to pay LSE’s legal costs.

Martin, welcome to reality.

On Twitter, Martin responded to the news by calling his critics “whores.” One of many examples:

My legal complaint did NOT involve a complaint about the seating. You have been misled by the press – The Times and the West End Extra/Camden New Journal both mysteriously got it wrong.

One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.

He then details his attempts to fight this grave injustice. Also, there’s this:

[S]everal comments here are confusing ‘whore’ with ‘slut’. A slut has sex freely, which I am all for. Freedom of association is the ultimate in humanity. A whore charges for sex. Even if a woman is a virgin, but is waiting for Mr Right to buy her something, she’s a whore.

It’s counter-intuitive, but a lot of professional feminists are whores. They expect the government and men to do them special favours. They make up stories to convince men and government to believe that we all owe women something.

But really, if someone were keeping a tab, then…

Women owe men five years pension. Women owe men some National Service. Women owe men some inventions. Women owe men positive discrimination in university curricula. Women owe men some child access. It’s women’s round at the bar too.

It would make men less paranoid, jealous, and protective about keeping women away from other men, thus allowing women freedom of movement, but it’s the women who don’t want to end the “controlling” nature of men.

Now remind me, which sex is it who wants to preserve “patriarchy”?

If women don’t identify the father for a paternity test, give the woman 6 months community service. She’ll remember who it was then.

Tom Martin anti-logic shields engaged! On the plus side, he got through most of a comment without using the word “whore”. He almost made it! I feel like we’re training a particularly dim dog. He’s catching on to the fact that constantly screaming WHORE undercuts his arguments, but it’s going to take a while for it to fully sink in, and his vocabulary is limited.

Actually Tom, I have no problem with paternity tests. But I think a lot of men and a few women will. It has nothing to do with wrong doing on those peoples parts, it has to do with the fact that only criminals are forced to undergo mandatory genetic testing.

You’ll be fighting an uphill battle dude, even moreso in Canada because we don’t have mandatory drug testing like the US does.

Xeginy is 100% right, Tom. But it’s even worse than that. A pacifist, in its usual definition, is a person who is against war.

A pacifist can therefore be a sex-worker, a housewife, a gold digger, a Muslim woman from Saudi Arabia with a husband who do all of her bidding,..

A non pacifist, let’s say a woman who invent weapons for the US army and spend her leisure time writing the president to urge him to go war with everybody, could also be a woman who depend of no men, a non-married woman who grant acces to her vagina to all men who wish it. And this imaginary woman pay for the condom, the lube, the drinks, the hotel room, refuse gifts, give gifts to her lovers (because she is rich thanks to all the weapon she created), never complain.

The question, of course, isn’t if these magic women exist or not. It’s that they could, in theory. One can be both pacifist and whore(tm)* and not pacifist and not whore(tm)*. Unless, it’s not pacifist you means, but pacifist(tm)*, and you have your own little definition of that word.

tl;dr : You seem to be using a very personal definition for ‘pacifist’. In any case we’re back to scare one: I can’t know what a whore(tm) is.

I propose that for every paternity test done, for each child born to the rightful father (ie the one told he’s the father) we should bill all men who’ve declared themselves MRAs. This will be to help offset the enormous costs of creating and maintaining a genetic base. On the other side, women who have children and falsly accuse the wrong man of fatherhood shall also be billed to help offset the cost.

But why compulsory paternity testing? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just offer paternity testing either at a low cost or for free? That way if a dude is unsure about the paternity, he can get the test done to see if he is the biological dad. But if the guy is sure, or he just doesn’t care, then the hospital doesn’t have to waste the money.

Also, if there is no father in the picture, why would a woman be required to put a father on the birth certificate if she didn’t want to? How would no father’s name on the birth certificate harm men in any way?

As a person whose profession involves connecting people with the information that they need, it causes me physical pain that you fail to make use of MOST of it, and the information you DO stumble across you fail to understand.

As previously mentioned, most women and feminists absolutely hate the idea of compulsory paternity tests.

Even though paternity tests would reduce male paranoia and controlling behaviour, as they’d have automatic verification the child was actually theirs, we can see my these reactions, women would rather perpetuate “the patriarchy” by perpetuating male uncertainty.

All the excuses.

If we tell women to find the father and get him tested and verified pronto – or face a huge fine and a six month spell of National Service – she’ll find the father every time.

Every time a woman has sex, she’ll be thinking I better get this guy’s details, or I’m going to the Gulag. She’ll get the details.

Even if the woman was working as a hooker at the docks, she’ll take every guy’s name and address. And that guy will wear a condom every freaking time.

If the law says that claiming the father is now dead would result in five years in prison if found to be fraudulent – woman wouldn’t make that lie.

Remember, 30% of non-custodial fathers paying child support are found not to be the biological father, so there’s a good few women who should be in prison right now:

It would make men less paranoid, jealous, and protective about keeping women away from other men, thus allowing women freedom of movement, but it’s the women who don’t want to end the “controlling” nature of men.

How would compulsory paternity testing make men less paranoid, jealous, or protective? Don’t guys get jealous and paranoid over stuff that has nothing to do with child paternity?

We already had this debate about paternity test not so long ago. Here is the conclusion on which most (all?) non-trolls agreed: mandatory test re useless for most, expensive and intrusive. Not mandatory tests are available to most, which is a good thing. If you think it should reimbursed by insurance or something, this is another, potentially interesting debate.

The idea that you can solve jealousy with paternity test is ridicule because
1) you can already do the test if you have doubts
2) people who don’t have babies can get jealous. Cis gay people can get jealous, though there is no possibility of lying about paternity. And straight people are aware than you can cheat while using condom. Cis women can get jealous. People get jealous of their platonic friends all the time.

You won’t destroy patriarchy by condemning women to community service.

I… I just realized. You want to give community service to women who just gave birth? To women who probably are in no shape of doing it and who (things being what they are) are probably in charge in charge of the baby.

Ah…so you just want to see women locked up! You do know that women can lose their children, face fines or go to jail for making false paternity claims in court right? They can also be ordered to repay the man who was cuckholded?

If we tell women to find the father and get him tested and verified pronto – or face a huge fine and a six month spell of National Service – she’ll find the father every time.

Every time a woman has sex, she’ll be thinking I better get this guy’s details, or I’m going to the Gulag. She’ll get the details.

Even if the woman was working as a hooker at the docks, she’ll take every guy’s name and address. And that guy will wear a condom every freaking time.

If the law says that claiming the father is now dead would result in five years in prison if found to be fraudulent – woman wouldn’t make that lie.

I’m confused. none of these scenarios actually involve a man being cuckolded (or even possibly cuckolded). How does informing a man, who has no idea that a woman is pregnant, that he MAY be the father, do anything for this apparent epidemic of cuckoldry paranoia

It would make men less paranoid, jealous, and protective about keeping women away from other men, thus allowing women freedom of movement, but it’s the women who don’t want to end the “controlling” nature of men.

Crap, I don’t know what kinds of men you’ve been hanging out with, Tom Martin. Sounds like a bunch of assholes.

“thus allowing women freedom of movement” — what the fuck?

allowing?

freedom?

movement?

You leave the house, right? And see people, out and about, exhibiting people-like behavior?

Come on, Tom, you have to admit that some of the objections are reasonable even by your standards. You’re proposing creating a massive genetic database, which would not only be expensive, but a lot of people would argue would be a huge privacy violation.

Aside from that, though, I genuinely don’t understand how a man knowing, for realsies, that the kid he’s raising is someone he genetically created, would solve any problems. Jealousy, paranoia, overly controlling…this behavior is not just motivated by “I wonder if this kid I’m raising/paying for is biologically mine?” There’s at least a dozen more reasons why a guy would be jealous, paranoid, or controlling about a woman. So your compulsory testing would, theoretically, only erase about 10% of the motivation behind those behaviors.

Or are you performing some “experimental psychology” on us? I’ve never been part of an experiment before…

See, Tom, you see “30% of men who pay child support are not the fathers of those children”. I, on the other had, see “of the self-selecting population of people who contest paternity (because paternity tests are not mandatory), only 30% find that they are not the father”. According to Jared Diamond in The Third Chimpanzee, in a blood-test study done on all newborns and their parents in one obstetrics ward, it was found that less than 10% of the children were not blood relatives of the men claimed as their fathers. The problem is not as dire as you make it out to be.

Tom, you don’t get it, it’s not us who hate the idea of compulsory test, it’s almost everybody. Imagine, if we have this law it means that:
– I an tell that you’re my baby’s father, and you’ll have to give DNA. You don’t care about privacy.
– most men don’t worry about the DNA of their child. Maybe they should, maybe they’re being cheated, but most men don’t worry about the issue. Including the controlling one.
– What happens if I’m raped by a stranger, and I keep the baby. Do you send me to jail because of that?
– What if I just don’t remember the father, I had sex with twenty dudes at a party and I don’t know any name, but my husband want to raise the child even though he knows he didn’t fathered him?

@ Tom Martin “Even if the woman was working as a hooker at the docks, she’ll take every guy’s name and address. And that guy will wear a condom every freaking time.”

Most of what you said was really boring and stupid, but this bit is fascinating. Does this mean that you actually draw a line between bona fide sex workers and the other “whores” you keep talking about? What’s the difference here? How does one go from being a regular 97% “whore” to being a “hooker”?

@random6x7 I think the difference between the two numbers is that 2/3 of men who do paternity tests get a negative. That’s not representative of everybody, because men who do tests are men who are reason to think they might no be the father. So obviously they have a higher result.

Why do you hate men so much that you want their civil liberties to be encroached upon by mandatory genetic testing, Tom?

Ironically this proves that Tom knows on some level that he’s not an oppressed person in any way. If he really did belong to a historically oppressed group he’d find the idea of state-mandated genetic testing a lot more alarming, because he’d already see all the ways in which it could be misused. But since he’s been swimming in privilege since birth, it doesn’t even occur to him to worry about that.

This comes from personal experience. I stood in a courtroom, in front of a judge and all the other members of court when my ex accused me of falsifying our childs paternity. In Canada, if the father so wishes, genetic testing will be done. He wished it and he is the father.

The judge explained that if he was the father, then he would pay the cost of the testing. If he was not, then I would pay the cost of the testing and the court case would be dropped. I’d also face penalties with making false claims.

@random: I thought so, but since it had been mentioned before I thought a bit of clarification wouldn’t hurt. But I’m tired so it’s probably not much clearer.

@Xeginy: unless you want to put 98% of women in prison, scenario 1 is possible, and even easy. I don’t need to sleep with Tom, just to say that he’s the father. As long as women keep getting pregnant, that’s a very probable scenario if you have mandatory tests.
If women stop to get pregnant… well we’re speaking about a completely different scenario, in which human are likely to disappear. Very soon.

You know what happens when one in every 250,000,000 mothers gets given the wrong child in the maternity ward?

The authorities initiate a huge investigation. Staff get fired. The woman gets thousands in compensation. Politicians promise to do more.

But men?

They get manboobzer excuses.
I disown manboobzers from the equality movement.

So much shit for excuses “Oh, we don’t see how guys knowing who the real father is will make any difference to their behaviour. No!”

Imagine women knew when they gave birth there was a 10% chance of a baby mix up in the maternity ward. Would that make any difference to their behaviour?

Fucking crack head whores you must be if you don’t get this.

And yes, throw the book at guys who are called for a paternity test but refuse.

It is not only about men’s rights. It is about the child’s rights to knowing its genetic heritage.

The child’s right should trump any others’ rights – because its the kid’s health in question. It’s the kid who in the future may need blood, or parts, or genetic information for future treatments – and a right to know what illnesses are in the family tree, and a right to know who the fuck their father is you cunts.

Tom, honey, you’re not part of “the equality movement”, therefore you can’t “disown” this site “from” it. Also, who wrote your LSE application for you? Because judging by your comments here you certainly wouldn’t have been admitted if you’d written it yourself.

…so now this is about the safety of children? I thought this was about preventing jealousy, paranoia, and controlling behavior in men. You still haven’t explained how the testing would improve men and women’s relationships, by the way.

Giving a cat meds is a 2 person job – one to hold the cat still and restrain its limbs, and one to pry the mouth open and squirt in the meds, and then hold the mouth closed for a while so that cat can’t spit them right back out.

I’m sorry, who is arguing about the rights of children to know their fathers? A man who believes children should be placed in harms way because daddy only beat mommy? You are an MRa right? So dads should see their kids regardless of anything else?

What about a childs rights to know their mother, you know, those people you’re so eager to throw in jail. The icky people you think your “cunning plan” will ensare?

You know what happens when one in every 250,000,000 mothers gets given the wrong child in the maternity ward?

A huge investigation is launched because a mixup like that makes the hospital liable; people lose trust in the institution, and it is ultimately the fault of THE HOSPITAL, not either of the parents.

When a woman lies, or is mistaken, about the paternity of the child, the only one who is liable is the individual woman. Since the hospital isn’t involved and, frankly, probably doesn’t really care, then there is no reason to launch an investigation of that sort.

However, the way I understand it, if a woman claims paternity and is mistaken when a paternity test is done, she’s liable for the cost. (I believe that’s the way it works in the U.S., that is. I’m not sure about the U.K.)

Why do you hate men, Tom? Why do you want to force all men to give up their genetic privacy while excusing all women born up to whenever mandatory paternity testing begins? Have you not heard the controversy over Henrietta Lacks’s cells? Did you not watch Gattaca?

Tom, what are you frothing at the mouth about? Nothing prevents you from getting a paternity test done for any children you may have. There are already laws in place in Canada for situations where men have been cuckholded. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are in Britain too.

I think we should test the grandparents too. I mean, what if grandad isn’t really the grandfather? There might be some elderly man out there who doesn’t even know that he just became a grandfather, and we can find him if we just start a massive DNA database! Also, back in the old days it wasn’t uncommon for families to pass kids off as the children of the mom if the daughter was unmarried, so grandma might not actually be the grandmother either. Clearly we need to test every potential relative and then, if it turns out that grandma or grandpa aren’t really related to the baby…well, could get complicated, so we should probably just send the mother to jail for being a whore, since that’s the simplest solution and the only one that will soothe Tom’s butthurt.

@David, When I had to give my kitty liquid antibiotics, I found that wrapping her in a tablecloth worked the best. A towel wasn’t big enough to really immobilize her. How’s your kitty? [Sends internet chin scratches, if that’s what she likes.]

Also, if you step out of your little Anglocentric worldview (which you seem to be able to do rather easily when it comes to whores ™ (h/t to Kyrie)), this is actually a common enough problem in some third world countries that mothers worry. My mom (who’s a doctor that was working in the hospital I was delivered at) had my dad follow the nurse until she put the nametag on me to ensure that that didn’t happen. Of course, things are much better now, but it’s still a bigger possibility out in the 3rd world than it is in the West. Yet no one’s running around declaring the need for DNA tests before a child is released from the hospital (possibly because they have bigger shit to worry about, as do most men and women in the West)

“These are two individuals whose specialty, other than apparently downing copious amounts of Ben and Jerry’s Patriarchy Chunk ice cream on a daily basis, is mining for minority voices on the fringe of the MRM, and conflating them with out of context quotes from actual MRA’s, twisted into the desired form. But they don’t even do that with enough gusto to burn a few calories.”